U.S invading and taking out Iraq's Root of Evil - wrong or right??

[Sunny]

Xiahou-Dun, so this is why the U.S wants to invade Iraq??
Because SH is buying arms instead of food for his people??
Because thousands of Iraqi children are dying??

(or have I missunderstood you??)

 

[Xiahou-Dun]

Originally posted by Sunny
Xiahou-Dun, so this is why the U.S wants to invade Iraq??
Because SH is buying arms instead of food for his people??
Because thousands of Iraqi children are dying??

(or have I missunderstood you??)

These are the reasons I would back an invasion of Iraq. As to why the US wants to, I can only speak for myself. I personally believe Bush will try to use the invasion for politic gains, but as with everything...no one can read the future and it just might backfire on him in the long run.

The 4 options I gave are what I see as the only answers to the problem. I call it a problem when children are dying because of a US lead sanction that doesn't work.


If I was President, I would be hard pushed not to take ..(Option..1. Do nothing and 5 to 10 years down the road, Iraq will invade it's neighbors again..with the possiblity of having nukes in their invertory.) and forget the Middle East. Back Israel with all the military equipment it needs to survive and buy oil from Russia. Most of the Middle East is ruled by dictators with the word King in front of it and will be as long as their oil is needed by not only the US, but the world..or at least till another source is found..(Russia)

 

[Sunny]

I hate to see people starving and children crying too, but ....
should the United States handle this?
or should the U.N?
or should the Iraqi people themselfs??

I don't think GWB wants to invade Iraq for these reasons, cause then there would be many countries in the world that the U.S would have to attack, and that's not the case, is it??

I think I´ve read something about the GWB administration claiming there are links between SH and Al-Qauida, is this true??

 

[Dralix]

As I recall, Donald Rumsfeld said not too long ago that he firmly believes there are Al Quaida agents in Iraq, but has no evidence, nor any evidence that Iraq is supporting them.

 

[Xiahou-Dun]

Originally posted by Sunny
I hate to see people starving and children crying too, but ....
should the United States handle this?
or should the U.N?
or should the Iraqi people themselfs??

I don't think GWB wants to invade Iraq for these reasons, cause then there would be many countries in the world that the U.S would have to attack, and that's not the case, is it??

I think I´ve read something about the GWB administration claiming there are links between SH and Al-Qauida, is this true??

1. If the US didn't who would?

2. The UN? And who's troops will the UN use to solve the problem? And do you really believe the UN could? I know of only one UN mission that has been "solved" without the use of US troops...and it was by Australian Troops.

3. I believe some of the Iraqi people tried and are now dead from nerve gas. Would you ask more of these people to die? Do you think they have a chance? If the Iraqi people can fix the problem, why are there children dying?

As to other countries, please list all the ones who have invaded their neighbors, while starving their people and are under US sanctions and I will say they need to be invaded as well.

Does Al-Qauida have something Saddam might want or need? If so, I willing to bet there are links.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by Sunny
Could we here some opinions from any of you 'no'-sayers??

Why sir, you indeed may have the response from bleeding heart/communist (these things seem to be the only things right-wingers call me).

No
No
No

There are two reasons why an invasion would take place.
1) Oil- no need to explain, Americans are oil-mongers
2) Retribution. Saddam put on a contract on Big Bush's head, and now little chimp Bush is seeking revenge.

The ONLY casus belli the US has for an invasion is for the Kurds. But since no one seems to care about them, the US officially has no reason for an invasion.

Now, there are some who believe that Iraq will be constructing nuclear arms. This may be true, but they pose no threat. Saddam is staying in power for Saddam. If he nukes something, his country turns into glass and his rule will end.

 

[newfangle]

Oh yeah I forgot to add: The US failed to help the Kurds when the original invasion took place, despite having a perfect oppurtunity. This makes Operation Desert Storm the most useless military endeavour in history. If they wanted to liberate Kuwait (a fine job they did), they should have either stopped the assault of continue onto Baghdad. The did it somewhere in the middle, which was so pointless it makes me want to smash my face against metallic things.

 

[knowltok2]

Sometimes I think that the US should just wash its hands of the region. Issue a statement that says, "Don't invade Israel, and keep the oil flowing, and we don't care." Invade who you want, gas who you want, wallow in monarchy and dictatorship if you want. Research nukes if you want, we aren't that close to you. Just don't destroy what is ours when you invade wherever you want, and we will get along fine.

Then I remember the price that is paid when evil is ignored. I remember that in 1936 the cost of war were deemed too high to defy a dictator who had broken the agreements made after the last great war. I remember the League of nations being completely inefective against Military regimes engaged in wars of conquest. I also remember the economic concept of 'sunk cost'. That mistakes and costs experienced in the past are not a basis for making decisions in the present.

I also remember that international relations is not an arena of black and whites. There is no such thing as a pure nation with pure intentions that always upholds the good and never makes a mistake. People understand that there are not 'evil' nations. That Iraq itself is not inherently evil, nor was the Soviet Union, nor even was Germany in the 30's and 40's. Some of their leaders may fall into this category, and many of their actions as well, but not all of them. That doesn't mean though that they shouldn't be opposed. That because the opposer is not a shining knight out of an Arthurian legend, and the opposed is not a demon from the pits of hell, somehow the cause isn't right, or doesn't make sense.

I then conclude that the US must do what it must in removing Saddam. The region is a powderkeg that is rapidly getting more dangerous. Nuclear technology is proliferating, radical extremists are in power or are close to it in many nations. This is not a good mix, and something needs done regardless of past historical mistakes or a lack of attack elsewhere in the world.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Originally posted by bigfatron
Iceblaze, from that I conclude that you do not support the concept of the UN or international law. Is that correct?

The way you conclude your conclusions must be flawed.
I never said I am against the concept of the UN or the Internetional law, I am just against it's current incarnation, it's politicisation, the fact that it's slow and full of internetional crapola, the fact that despots have the same voting power as democracies, etc.
Internetional law is slow, and by the rate of it's politization and the way it handles things it will take years over years over years untill ANYTHING is done about the fact that Iraq and Iran will get a hold of NBC, or the fact that they assist terrorists, if ever.

That's fine, but remember that it is that same international law which says that terrorism, in particular attacking civilians, is against the Geneva convention.

I don't need a geneva convention to know terrorism is wrong. Do you?

It's the law which stipulates you right to self defence.

Exactly. I can't do anythong to defend myself unless I am already attacked, according to internetional law.
I can't interfear with the interim politics of other states even if they hurt me.
Do I need internetional law to know when to defend myself? No.
According to Internetional Law I should let the Palestinians arm themselves unless I can prove they intend to hurt me, I should immedeiately withdraw from all Palestinian areas with NO negotiations, I should not touch Iraqs or Irans nuclear reactors even if they are a direct threat on me, I should not interfear the despots of countries that hurt me not should I democratisize them.
So where would I be without that "International law"?

That is the law which lends some legal support to your actions in Palestine and the claims to moral superiority as a democracy fighting under the law.

According to Internetinoal Law almost all of the IDF officers should already be in prison while Shahedah could continue to live happily.

Therefore, get off your soapbox about terrorism - if there is no moral or legal framework to our relations with other countries then there is no super-national moral or legal objection to bombing a bus or anything else.

Oh really? Nice to hear you need a BOOK to know what is right and what is wrong about exploding busses and pizzerias full of civilians.
That is the biggest load of crap I heard in my life.

Take your choice - you are either in favour of international law and accept the restrictions as well as the entitlements that flow from that support, or you don't care for it in which case anything goes, including invading Baghdad or nuking Tel Aviv. It is intellectually indefensible to pick and choose.

True, and that is why I preffer not to listen to internetinoal law currently.
Internetional law would be fine by me if I wasn't threatened daily by a bunch of people I can't attack under international law.
Currently, that is NOT the situation, and accepting that Internetional law has some mediocre parts that have the same importance as vital parts would mean I DIE. What would you choose?

 

[amadeus]

Hussein needs to go. Period.

 

[IceBlaZe]

lol. That's a fascist picture.

 

[Heffalump]

Two standard rejections of the attack Iraq argument are: a) it's about oil, b) it makes a joke of international law. Both fail.

*The oil argument is laughable because the US is actually a lot more restrictive of who it allows it's oil companies to do business with than are most other nations. The euro folk quite happily do business with a number of odious regimes that US companies are forbidden by law from working under. Moreover oil prices are relatively low, and the cost benefit analysis (in terms of lives and money) of invading Iraq for the purpose of further lowering them is negative to the extreme. (In truth I don't think many of the people who make this argument really believe it. At least not the educated ones.)

*The international law argument is also a red herring. Who is really in breach of international law at the moment? The regime that has ignored the UN resolutions it swore to comply with, or the country suggesting that those UN resolutions be enforced.
What is the point of these grand "international laws" (as defined by the Euros) if they are not enforced? In this matter it is the US that is doing more for the cause of "international law".

 

[bigfatron]

I don't need a book to tell me what is right or wrong. I have a moral view of my own, just like anyone else. I believe doing any unnecessary harm is morally unacceptable.

That is not my point.

You either accept or deny the validity of international law, just like national law. It's not a valid defence in your courts to say 'I don't agree with this law, I'm going to break it'. Nor is that a valid argument in regard to international law.

Sure you can want to change aspects of international law - I do as well, and we'd probably agree on quite a few of them. But unless you do so within the framework of the law as it stands, and accept the validity of those laws you seek to change even though you disagree with them, then you are undermining the legal framework.

You may think my point is crap but I'm afraid you've missed it - if you don't think there is any point in playing by the 'rules', if the 'rules' can and should be ignored at your convenience, then you can't expect anyone else to play by the 'rules' either. Logically, anything goes. It's total war.

Sure it may be repulsive for people to blow up buses, as it was repulsive for bombers to drop loads at random on civilian areas in the last war, to carry out punishment by association or to target and sink passenger ships, but the logic is indisputable - if you believe the 'rules' can be ignored at a protaganist's convenience then there are no limits.

Possibly your argument is that democracies have to ignore the rules sometimes as less scrupulous countries will do so anyway. Like saying law-abiding citizens may have to ignore laws if criminals do as well, taking the law into their own hands. If so, I just have to disagree - there's a fine line between a vigilante and lynch mob and I don't trust the current White House administration to walk it successfully.

Personally I believe that all democracies, like law-abiding citizens, should do their utmost to act within the law. Of course there comes a point when one may have to act in accordance with one's moral imperative and defy a law which one believes is unjust. However, I would always strive to achieve my goal within the law first, to change the law second and only break it as a last resort. I believe democracies should behave in a similar way and I do not think this is happening at present.

As regards 'terrorism' being wrong, as always the question is, 'who's terrorism are we talking about?' Western democracies have supported guerilla groups doing their dirty work for decades.

I believe that causing unecessary or deliberate harm is wrong - I don't give a damn what label a politician chooses to stick on it, whether it's terrorism, martyrdom or collateral damage.

Finally I apologise for the use of the phrase 'get off your soapbox about terrorism' - it was inappropriate and I am sorry for it. My only defense is my frustration at yet another thread being diverted into an Israeli-Arab discussion.

 

[bigfatron]

Originally posted by Heffalump
*The international law argument is also a red herring. Who is really in breach of international law at the moment? The regime that has ignored the UN resolutions it swore to comply with, or the country suggesting that those UN resolutions be enforced.
What is the point of these grand "international laws" (as defined by the Euros) if they are not enforced? In this matter it is the US that is doing more for the cause of "international law".

Ah, so if you see someone breaking the law its OK to go and thump him in the face? Rubbish - its for the courts to deal with. Acting as a vigilante is not supporting the law.

Ten years ago the UN happily sanctioned an invasion of Kuwait, and might well have sanctioned wider action if asked. Perhaps if the US were less contemptuous of the UN they might get more support for their views from the rest of the world.

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by Heffalump
*The international law argument is also a red herring. Who is really in breach of international law at the moment? The regime that has ignored the UN resolutions it swore to comply with, or the country suggesting that those UN resolutions be enforced.
What is the point of these grand "international laws" (as defined by the Euros) if they are not enforced? In this matter it is the US that is doing more for the cause of "international law".

Enforcing the UN resolutions is not the same as the US unilaterally attacking Iraq. Enforcing the UN resolutions is what the US and British planes that continue to patrol the no fly zone and bomb targets are doing.

If the UN Security Council approved a resolution for an invasion of Iraq as a means of allowing weapons inspectors back in, that would be different. But the US cannot act alone in the name of enforcing UN resolutions.

 

[Heffalump]

The last I heard the US had not "unilaterally" attacked Iraq. Rather it was trying to raise support to take action against Iraq.

Odd that the Euros in their hysteria accuse the US of breaching international law, instead of supporting action against the ones truly in breach.

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by Heffalump
The last I heard the US had not "unilaterally" attacked Iraq. Rather it was trying to raise support to take action against Iraq.

The thread asks if it is right for the US to attack Iraq. I interpreted that as unilaterally. Unilateral action is not the same as enforcing UN resolutions.

 

[Mad Bomber]

I think the US should take out Iraq, but I do not believe that it is the right time for it. The U.S. if it decides to, should not depend upon a large "coalition" to invade Iraq as it was the coalition of 1991 that prevented the U.S. from removing Saddam at the end of the Gulf War. I think that there are other matters that are more pressing, like the continuing suppression of Al-Queda, continued efforts in Afganistan & Packistan, as well as the crisis between Israel & Palestine. The US has too many things on its plate at the moment, I think the US should wait until we have cleared up some of its other obligations first.

 

[Heffalump]

The thread asks if it is right for the US to attack Iraq. I interpreted that as unilaterally. Unilateral action is not the same as enforcing UN resolutions.

Funny how some people are SOOO concerned about infractions of "international law" where the US is concerned, but quite happy to overlook the abuses of a maniacal dictator pursuing WMD.

The plain fact of the matter is that if more people were willing to enforce existing UN resolutions then we wouldn't be having a silly debate about whether or not the US should act unilaterally.

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by Heffalump
The plain fact of the matter is that if more people were willing to enforce existing UN resolutions then we wouldn't be having a silly debate about whether or not the US should act unilaterally.

This, I agree with. So why doesn't the US make a proposal to the Security Council?